Prop 8 struck down

[DC Tom]

I know the Catholic Church would have a problem with that. Mine wouldn't

 

I love springing that on Catholics. "So you support torture and ritual cannibalism?" Only thing more fun is "Jesus was a Jew."

[John Adams]

I love springing that on Catholics. "So you support torture and ritual cannibalism?" Only thing more fun is "Jesus was a Jew."

 

I learned in Catholic school that although he was a Jew, he was the last one that mattered. All the rest are going to Hell.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I learned in Catholic school that although he was a Jew, he was the last one that mattered. All the rest are going to Hell.

 

That would be the heretical "Replacement Theology" that states that the church has supplanted the Jews in God's eyes. Yet, that's in direct contradiction to (and indeed is not contained in) Scripture itself. Christians take a lot of blame for anti-Semitism related to this erroneous thought, but the blame does lie squarely in the lap of the Catholic Church.

[GG]

hmmm....you one of those guys who's against clapping at Bills camp?

 

Given the quality of play, I think a polite golf clap is most they deserve at this point.

[Dan]

Seems like another in a long line of rational compromises. Now, it's just a matter of getting your liberal pals to agree to it.

 

And, it might make sense for a marriage performed by a religion to count as a civil union. Why make people do it twice? This way, the religions that want to allow gays to marry are free to do so, those that don't aren't forced to do so. Everything still counts as a civil union, and the rights are all the same.

 

Or something like that. There is common ground on this issue that 80% of us can get behind, the problem is, just like with health care, the liberals aren't willing to compromise. They want to force the religious to accept principles that they simply cannot, or, they want to force religion out of the national consciousness altogether. Hardly a "tolerant" view.

 

At least 80% of this country believes in God, hence, the 45 anti-gay marriage laws. I am still waiting for these fools to learn from their mistakes. It seems that they have no concept of introspection however, so it seems they never will.

But can't that arguement be turned around as well. Why are these religious people forcing their principles on me? I don't care who get married; it in no ay affects my life what you or anyone does in their home. So why is it so damaging to one person's principles to allow 2 guys or 2 hot chicks to get married?

 

So you keep saying that liberals are trying to force their views on conservatives. All they're saying is that if someone wants to be married, legally, they should be allowed to. But, the religious right, people that aren't gay, are the one's saying you can't do it because it's goes against my morals. So, who's forcing who's principles on who?

[Jim in Anchorage]

But can't that arguement be turned around as well. Why are these religious people forcing their principles on me? I don't care who get married; it in no ay affects my life what you or anyone does in their home. So why is it so damaging to one person's principles to allow 2 guys or 2 hot chicks to get married?

 

So you keep saying that liberals are trying to force their views on conservatives. All they're saying is that if someone wants to be married, legally, they should be allowed to. But, the religious right, people that aren't gay, are the one's saying you can't do it because it's goes against my morals. So, who's forcing who's principles on who?

Why do they need to be hot? God you are giving Conner the race of his life for best simpleton on the forum.

[OCinBuffalo]

The OC's of the world won't allow it, that's why.

You aren't even paying attention.

 

Me:

Seems like another in a long line of rational compromises. Now, it's just a matter of getting your liberal pals to agree to it.

 

It might make sense for a marriage performed by a religion to count as a civil union. Why make people do it twice? This way, the religions that want to allow gays to marry are free to do so, those that don't aren't forced to do so. Everything still counts as a civil union, and the rights are all the same.

 

Or something like that. There is common ground on this issue that 80% of us can get behind...

 

You might not like what happened and why, but, then again, nobody does, so you aren't special.

Nobody includes me, dipschit.

Episopalians would be willing to marry homosexual couples. As would many other mainstream religions. The man-woman marriage nutcases won't let the religions do it. The right wants to tell religions how they can operate. It's kind of hard for OC to justify isn't it?

Again, you aren't even paying attention to what I am saying.

 

Try reading what I write before opening your dopey mouth.

[OCinBuffalo]

Getting outvoted doesn't make them wrong.

Sure it does. Their approach ended up costing gay people big time, and making a relatively simple equity/tax/inheritance issue into a major f'ing deal. That's wrong anyway you look at it.

 

I should not have to explain to a lawyer, that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. That's wrong.

 

How the hell is weaponizing gay marriage so you can antagonize people you hate(let's not kid ourselves: this was 100% motivated by hatred of religion) not absolutely wrong? Never mind stupid, given that their club is way bigger than yours, and they beat you with it 45 times?

 

No sir, this is wrong all day, and you know it. Gay rights took a back seat to the liberals' need to be D-bags, and that is wrong. Your reading comprehension of my posts in this thread has taken a back seat to your need to be a D-bag, and that is also wrong.

They are demanding it because:

 

(1) For many of them, especially the Christians, they want to be married. And the denominations that would so it (not the kooky fringe ones even), aren't allowed to marry them. So you want to tell religions what they can and can't do regarding their marriage ceremonies. It's sad that you won't let people practice one of their religious sacraments but whatever. Your "rationality" breaks down because gay is gross.

Say what? You are acting like the kooky fringe religions, who are the only ones that will marry gays, are the majority. Clearly, 45 state laws later, that is not the case. The majority of religions have absolutely 0 interest in having their sacraments f'ed with by you, me, anybody. You think the Pope gives a crap about what you or I think? How about the Dali Lama?

 

Religions, not you, and certainly not me, get to decide who gets to be in their group, and who doesn't. They also get to decide what they will do, and what they won't. Nice attempt at a straw man, but YOU are arguing that it's ok to force ALL religions to marry gays, because SOME religions, or individuals want to. Yeah, that makes sense, counselor. 1st Amendment? Again, I can't believe I have to explain these things to a lawyer.

(2) If you are civilly joined to your husband, and end up in court over something like custody, imagine all the arguments that can be applied because the laws are written regarding marital custody and all the legal precedent is written for marriage. Gays would probably like to rely on hundreds of years of precedent and (some) predictability regarding their legal rights concerning: divorce, powers of attorney, adoption, custody, marital privilege, inheritance, benefits, etc.

 

So the fight over a word has import at least for religious and legal reasons. Swallow about the first one because it's true. Lots and lots of gay people want to be married in church--and call themselves married--but you won't let them.

Again, I have no idea why you are trying to personalize this to me. You have the reading comprehension skills of ....conner.

 

As, in order, ..lybob, GG and I and the rest here already stated: We think that civil unions, or some legal construct, should be the thing where all legal rights, issues, questions, and other lawyer douchebaggery should be attached. Leave marriage a religious thing, to be conducted by each religion as they see fit. I added: let a religious marriage "count" as a civil union/whatever legal construct we require. I don't think anybody in this thread has a problem with that, especially me. Get it, Bonehead?

[OCinBuffalo]

But can't that arguement be turned around as well. Why are these religious people forcing their principles on me? I don't care who get married; it in no ay affects my life what you or anyone does in their home. So why is it so damaging to one person's principles to allow 2 guys or 2 hot chicks to get married?

I was going to refer you to John Adams, so he could tell you about the concept of "legal precedent", but apparently he needs remedial work on the 1st Amendment, so I will take over for him :

 

1. The "religious people" and their values, were here first, defining marriage their way. All the subsequent legal questions and rulings have been predicated on the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman = religious people definition.

2. As GG has said, the big mistake was making this religious institution part of our civil law, but we did, and now, the religious definition IS the legal definition. Whether we like it or not is legally irrelevant.

3. What you care/don't care about is also legally irrelevant.

4. What people who want traditional marriage care about is NOT legally irrelevant, because, they have the legal precedent(1-2) on their side.

5. So, it comes down to this: you have to prove that the traditional marriage people have intentionally set out to deny gay people their rights, and that ain't happening, because they didn't. Traditional marriage people never had any sort of malicious intent, they simply created a religious institution, 3000+ years ago, and our governments co-opted it as it was defined. In all cases, you have to prove that the way things are is intentionally inequitable.

 

Therefore, their principles(values) win because they were here first. If you want to force your values(because that's the right word here, not principles) on the traditional people, you have to make the case. If you can't, or it's a "tie", then their values remain in place.

So you keep saying that liberals are trying to force their views on conservatives.

I keep saying it, because for reasons passing understanding, some here can't seem to accept this simple truth. And, keep in mind that the Democratically dominated NYS legislature passed a law against performing gay marriages. Clearly, that = Democrats AND Conservatives forcing their views on leftists.

All they're saying is that if someone wants to be married, legally, they should be allowed to. But, the religious right, people that aren't gay, are the one's saying you can't do it because it's goes against my morals. So, who's forcing who's principles on who?

Nope. As I said, the traditional definition has become a matter of law. If you want to change the law, you have to make the case. The case for gay marriage was made by immature D-bags, who put their need to antagonize above the legal issues, and the 45 anti-gay marriage laws are the result. Your elected representatives, bowing to the - now-fired up by leftist idiots - will of their constituents, passed the laws. Now, it's even harder for gay people to get the rights they deserve, directly due to this infantile hubris. When everybody gets done talking, or trying to make this about me, the above remains the truth.

[Magox]

It will all be settled, it's just a matter of time and demographics...

[OCinBuffalo]

I agree. Well, at least I get your point. I know plenty of self-proclaimed conservatives who think just that way. But when they get in bed with the religious right (as they often do) and have tea-party cuddle parties, does it really matter?

 

A good buddy of mine has a bumper sticker that reads: Conservative doesn't mean Racist.

 

I tell him, "too bad they so often come together in the same package."

 

I am still waiting for these "true conservatives" to champion civil rights with the verve they try to protect their pocketbook. Seems to me they are usually standing with the bigots who attempt to stop any social progress.

You are right. The problem is: every "true conservative" I know isn't going to let D-bag liberals push them around on anything. Conservative '= candy ass. There were 20 better ways for this issue to be approached, and the leftists idiots chose to take the "lower than whaleschit in the ocean", scumbag approach.

 

I re-read this thread, and I haven't found any of the right's usual suspects championing anything but civil rights for gays.

 

The problem is: the liberals bungled this big time, and now it's a mess. Of course, instead of taking the blame for their f up, they are, as usual, blaming everybody else but themselves.

 

And, reality check: the Democratic party has been 10x more racist than the GOP historically.

 

I would argue, and I would be right, that far too many Democratic policies have produced "racist" results, unintentionally or otherwise. That is, unless you support the idea that black women should just "have as many babies as they want" and the LBJs of the world will implement policies to support and encourage that behavior. Minority families have been utterly destroyed as a result of LBJ's "help". The War on Poverty has worked out exactly as well as the War on Drugs. The intentions may have been good, but the results have been horrible, and "racist" in every sense of the word.

[John Adams]

You aren't even paying attention.

 

Right-o.

 

Again, you aren't even paying attention to what I am saying.

 

Since you get so excited about my profession, this one's for you: "Id."

 

Try reading what I write before opening your dopey mouth.

 

Thanks for the offer. I'll decline that date.

[John Adams]

How the hell is weaponizing gay marriage so you can antagonize people you hate(let's not kid ourselves: this was 100% motivated by hatred of religion) not absolutely wrong? Never mind stupid, given that their club is way bigger than yours, and they beat you with it 45 times?

 

No sir, this is wrong all day, and you know it. Gay rights took a back seat to the liberals' need to be D-bags, and that is wrong. Your reading comprehension of my posts in this thread has taken a back seat to your need to be a D-bag, and that is also wrong.

 

Since you write like a 3 year old, I'll try this in the way you seem to understand: Wrong.

 

And no, I don't feel like providing support because I have no interest in engaging you.

 

And why do I hold you in such disdain? See

 

Say what? You are acting like the kooky fringe religions, who are the only ones that will marry gays

 

Kooky fringe Episcopalians, right?

 

Only 14 presidents have been that religion and 2% of the US pop. Friggin' outliers.

 

Clearly, 45 state laws later, that is not the case. The majority of religions have absolutely 0 interest in having their sacraments f'ed with by you, me, anybody.

 

Then they shouldn't pass laws telling religions who they can marry.

 

 

YOU are arguing that it's ok to force ALL religions to marry gays, because SOME religions, or individuals want to.

 

I am sure you can find where I argued that since you read my posts so closely.

 

Any time you wonder why I hold you in such low regard, you can return to this post.

[Simon]

Yeah the Dems alone are responsible for how this issue is framed? Is that stating your position correctly?

It always is.

[IDBillzFan]

A good buddy of mine has a bumper sticker that reads: Conservative doesn't mean Racist.

 

I tell him, "too bad they so often come together in the same package."

Actually, it's too bad that they "so often" come together in a number of different packages: unions and racists; educators and racists; manufacturers and racists; liberals and racists; churches and racists; actors and racists....the list goes on and on and on.

 

But it takes a liberal to bust their ass trying to oversell the conservative/racist combo pack as an exclusive product. When you have nothing, play the race card.

 

Not that it matters to you, but I expected more from you, Deano. Not sure why, but I did.

[Andrew in CA]

How the hell is weaponizing gay marriage so you can antagonize people you hate(let's not kid ourselves: this was 100% motivated by hatred of religion) not absolutely wrong?

Can you clarify this point, please? Do you mean to say that the effort to legalize gay marriage is 100% motivated by hatred of religion? I'm sure that can't be what you mean...

[The Avenger]

Seems like another in a long line of rational compromises. Now, it's just a matter of getting your liberal pals to agree to it.

 

And, it might make sense for a marriage performed by a religion to count as a civil union. Why make people do it twice? This way, the religions that want to allow gays to marry are free to do so, those that don't aren't forced to do so. Everything still counts as a civil union, and the rights are all the same.

 

Or something like that. There is common ground on this issue that 80% of us can get behind, the problem is, just like with health care, the liberals aren't willing to compromise. They want to force the religious to accept principles that they simply cannot, or, they want to force religion out of the national consciousness altogether. Hardly a "tolerant" view.

 

At least 80% of this country believes in God, hence, the 45 anti-gay marriage laws. I am still waiting for these fools to learn from their mistakes. It seems that they have no concept of introspection however, so it seems they never will.

 

 

I've not seen where anyone is trying to force churches to accept gay marriage. The churches can and do select who they will marry in their own religious tradition - I know the Mormons won't marry non-Mormons (in fact, you have to be Mormon to attend the ceremony in a Mormon temple), and from what I understand the Catholic church puts all sorts of conditions on marrying (pre-marital education, willingness to agree that children will be raised Catholic, etc.) - there's absolutely nothing wrong with that and as a separation of church and State issue the State should not dictate who churches should marry.

 

What is being argued is that if the State decides who should be allowed to marry (and it is the State making this decision), gays should not be excluded. People talk about civil unions all the time, but the truth is that these are not full marriages - they aren't recognized beyond state borders, there is no legal precendent requiring them to be recognized and in general serve as some sort of "separate but equal" arrangement. The push is for full legal marriages in the State sense, not the church sense - this is where people aren't willing to compromise.

 

The problem really is that a marriage often has components that aren't easily separated - the civil component and the religious component. It may just be a matter of symantics, but until society shifts to be concerned with whether you're "in a civil union" instead of whether you're "married" this problem will continue. I think gays need to be allowed to have a marriage, called a marriage, with all the rights of any other marriage but with the understanding that this is a State marrige, not a church marriage.

[DrDawkinstein]

Can you clarify this point, please? Do you mean to say that the effort to legalize gay marriage is 100% motivated by hatred of religion? I'm sure that can't be what you mean...

 

came back to read this thread, saw that post, remembered why i dont come to PPP.

[DC Tom]

came back to read this thread, saw that post, remembered why i dont come to PPP.

 

But let's not kid ourselves; I'm sure your not coming to PPP is 100% motivated by hatred of religion...

 

 

[OCinBuffalo]

Can you clarify this point, please? Do you mean to say that the effort to legalize gay marriage is 100% motivated by hatred of religion? I'm sure that can't be what you mean...

No problem. Ask yourself: what was the goal here?

1. To gain equitable treatment for our gay citizens?

or was it:

2. Attempt to score points on Republicans and Relgious people by attacking them over something, it was thought, they couldn't fight back on?

 

I am certain that this started out as #1, because I have been to Ithaca, NY, which was holding gay marriages as legal since I was in high school. I am certain that nobody, especially me, cared one way or the other. I am certain that the original approach was about slow, but consistent, change, a matter of explanation, and convincing argument.

 

When Massachusetts passed its law, we heard #1....for about 2 weeks.

 

Suddenly? Out of nowhere, #2 showed up, and was all we heard, day and night. A few misguided D-bags thought they saw a political opportunity, and, a few more insecure D-bags who are always looking for ways to point out that they are better than religious people(see this thread), were all too happy to pile on.

 

So, no, 100% hatred of religion is not accurate. In fact it started with 0% hatred of religion. But, when the D-bags started showing up? Yeah, suddenly it went from 0 to 90%? And gay rights became the 10% afterthought.